PROVING PRIME - A Brief History of Prime - Part 2

[dasaltemelosguy]

Hi everyone, we've decided to combine the two articles, "Proving Prime" and "A Brief History of Prime". As the former is the sequel to the latter, we think this is clearer and more comprehensive in this way. 

Here are links to that article and the video directly:

"A Brief History of Prime"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by dasaltemelosguy
Moved Article for Combination

[Guppysnail]

This is so fabulous. It is a gift to have a friend and forum member that comes up with all of these wonderful experiments that answers questions in such a solid way. 

[Ninjoma]

Thanks for all the research and testing you've done for both of the articles in this series. They have been super helpful. I do have one question though. Since prime reduces ammonia and ammonium, does that mean it negatively impacts ones ability to cycle a tank because it will lower the amount of ammonia and ammonium available for bacteria to convert? 

[Lennie]

Thank you for sharing all these with us.

I have a question in my mind. Y'know, while seachem says prime just converts ammonia and nitrite into a nontoxic version, it remains available for the use of beneficial bacteria. There are even some people that do fish-in cycle by dosing prime.

So if the test reads no ammonia, does it mean is it actually removed, so beneficial bacteria can't utilise it? Or they potentially made the claim as it takes hours to read 0 even in 10x dose which is twice the amount of safe emergency dose? Or is it just in a form that is not being read as ammonia with but bioavailable to the beneficial bacteria still? I just got confused a lil as you said it is removed. You mean no longer exist in a harmful way for tank inhabitants?

@Ninjoma We think the same lol! I've just read ur msg

[Pepere]

Well, if the time requirements are as you say, there is exceedingly little benefit of dosing prime into a bag of water that shipped fish arrived in while the bag temp acclimates…. There simply isnt enough time to do much.

And I have measured 16 ppm total ammonia in a shipped bag of fish….

And to be very honest I cant imagine ever seeing foam on the tank s water surface, measuring 4 ppm ammonia and simply dosing and saying “good enough”…. I would be doing at least a 50% water change, dosing dechlor and adding filter squeezings from another tank.  But after reading this I would be dosing the 5 time amountanyway as the stuff is cheap enough…

 

And I am also going to dose a gallon of tap water to 8 ppm, dose it 5 times normal dose of Fritz complete and pull samples and test for ammonia this weekend and graph the levels over time….

 

Edited April 13 by Pepere

[dasaltemelosguy]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:57 PM, Lennie said:

Thank you for sharing all these with us.

I have a question in my mind. Y'know, while seachem says prime just converts ammonia and nitrite into a nontoxic version, it remains available for the use of beneficial bacteria. There are even some people that do fish-in cycle by dosing prime.

So if the test reads no ammonia, does it mean is it actually removed, so beneficial bacteria can't utilise it? Or they potentially made the claim as it takes hours to read 0 even in 10x dose which is twice the amount of safe emergency dose? Or is it just in a form that is not being read as ammonia with but bioavailable to the beneficial bacteria still? I just got confused a lil as you said it is removed. You mean no longer exist in a harmful way for tank inhabitants?

@Ninjoma We think the same lol! I've just read ur msg

On 4/13/2023 at 12:26 PM, Ninjoma said:

Thanks for all the research and testing you've done for both of the articles in this series. They have been super helpful. I do have one question though. Since prime reduces ammonia and ammonium, does that mean it negatively impacts ones ability to cycle a tank because it will lower the amount of ammonia and ammonium available for bacteria to convert? 

Hi, these are really good questions. Thanks for raising this is as it's an important point.

For simplicity in the article, I abbreviated the chemistry and generalized the compounds into families.

There are two families of detoxifiers. I’ll use acronyms here, but one used by Fritz and Tetra is known as “SFS” and the other in use is known as “SFB”.

I don’t recall who but @Guppysnail may know, but someone well known stated that Prime and Fritz are “one molecule apart”. That molecule is hydrogen and it’s the difference between SFS and SFB. Fritz as mentioned uses SFS, not SFB. The “B” in SFB means hydrogen and Seachem refers to their ingredients as “Hydrosulfites” so it’s not unreasonable to assume Seachem is using SFB which IS one molecule away from SFS as @Guppysnail stated.

Their reductive reactions are very similar. I believe SFB produces more water but otherwise they are very similar and create the same byproduct; an ammonia salt known as AMS.

The “A” in AMS stands for “amino”, indicating it’s an ammonia compound. While AMS is non-toxic and mildly stable up to a pH of about 10, (at which point it begins to break down), it is still not very stable so it can be broken down by a variety of environmental changes such as temperature, pH, and bacteria. This instability classifies it as a “weak bond” so it is accessible to beneficial bacteria as food. The “amino” portion is directly consumed by the BB readily.

In fact, it’s 92% as efficient as ammonia itself. All four of these laboratories have documented beneficial bacteria consuming AMS. Some are water samples; others are soil samples, but all have concluded BB eats AMS. So yes, you’re right, cycling will continue.

Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample - PubMed (nih.gov)

Effects of pH and Oxygen and Ammonium Concentrations on the Community Structure of Nitrifying Bacteria from Wastewater - PMC (nih.gov)

Bacterial Branched-Chain Amino Acid Biosynthesis: Structures, Mechanisms, and Drugability - PMC (nih.gov)

Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

 

[Lennie]

On 4/14/2023 at 8:15 PM, dasaltemelosguy said:

Hi, these are really good questions. Thanks for raising this is as it's an important point.

For simplicity in the article, I abbreviated the chemistry and generalized the compounds into families.

There are two families of detoxifiers. I’ll use acronyms here, but one used by Fritz and Tetra is known as “SFS” and the other in use is known as “SFB”.

I don’t recall who but @Guppysnail may know, but someone well known stated that Prime and Fritz are “one molecule apart”. That molecule is hydrogen and it’s the difference between SFS and SFB. Fritz as mentioned uses SFS, not SFB. The “B” in SFB means hydrogen and Seachem refers to their ingredients as “Hydrosulfites” so it’s not unreasonable to assume Seachem is using SFB which IS one molecule away from SFS as @Guppysnail stated.

Their reductive reactions are very similar. I believe SFB produces more water but otherwise they are very similar and create the same byproduct; an ammonia salt known as AMS.

The “A” in AMS stands for “amino”, indicating it’s an ammonia compound. While AMS is non-toxic and mildly stable up to a pH of about 10, (at which point it begins to break down), it is still not very stable so it can be broken down by a variety of environmental changes such as temperature, pH, and bacteria. This instability classifies it as a “weak bond” so it is accessible to beneficial bacteria as food. The “amino” portion is directly consumed by the BB readily.

In fact, it’s 92% as efficient as ammonia itself. All four of these laboratories have documented beneficial bacteria consuming AMS. Some are water samples; others are soil samples, but all have concluded BB eats AMS. So yes, you’re right, cycling will continue.

Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample - PubMed (nih.gov)

Effects of pH and Oxygen and Ammonium Concentrations on the Community Structure of Nitrifying Bacteria from Wastewater - PMC (nih.gov)

Bacterial Branched-Chain Amino Acid Biosynthesis: Structures, Mechanisms, and Drugability - PMC (nih.gov)

Isolation and characterization of two new methanesulfonic acid-degrading bacterial isolates from a Portuguese soil sample - PubMed (nih.gov)

 

 

Great info, thanks!! 

[Odd Duck]

On 4/13/2023 at 3:20 PM, Pepere said:

Well, if the time requirements are as you say, there is exceedingly little benefit of dosing prime into a bag of water that shipped fish arrived in while the bag temp acclimates…. There simply isnt enough time to do much.

And I have measured 16 ppm total ammonia in a shipped bag of fish….

And to be very honest I cant imagine ever seeing foam on the tank s water surface, measuring 4 ppm ammonia and simply dosing and saying “good enough”…. I would be doing at least a 50% water change, dosing dechlor and adding filter squeezings from another tank.  But after reading this I would be dosing the 5 time amountanyway as the stuff is cheap enough…

 

And I am also going to dose a gallon of tap water to 8 ppm, dose it 5 times normal dose of Fritz complete and pull samples and test for ammonia this weekend and graph the levels over time….

 

Yes, if levels of any of the nitrogenous toxins (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate) are extremely high, a large water change is always indicated, then dose Prime or other dechlorinator to bind anything (or at least most of anything) that’s left.  I suppose if you dumped enough Prime in the bag it might help but why would you not just start switching out water immediately or plop and drop for even faster reduction in toxins?  Yes, to adding Prime to the bag before shipping to minimize build up of toxins as they are produced, but probably no to treating a bag vs just temperature acclimate then plop and drop for me.  Especially when it comes in with a foul odor or some fish dead in the bag.  That’s a bag that no amount of Prime is going to improve, so getting fish out of that bag is top priority for me.

But for most people, using Prime is about the tank, not the bag, so these findings are very relevant to daily use of dechlorinators and toxin binders for most aquarists.

@Pepere, that sounds like a good experiment to run.  That could tell us if somehow the product that is produced from “binding” later reverts or becomes something else entirely.  Perhaps part of the population of the BB’s do some magical bacterial conversion thing to make the toxins come back into play.  We know that not all of the microflora of tanks are known, so we certainly don’t have a full grasp on what the various micro-organisms do, so we certainly don’t know every detail about what happens in any given aquarium.  After all, we can have side by side tanks that get seemingly identical water changes, near identical plants, lighting, etc.  Yet they still somehow end up with different plant growth, different algaes, or other sudden or gradual changes.

@dasaltemelosguy, I wonder if the “48 hour” thing is because they know more production is likely happening in the tank if the levels get high enough to need the 5X emergency dose (ED) and the Prime has all likely been “used up” in the first 48 hours or less.  So then redosing would almost certainly be wise before toxins build to dangerous levels again.

Hah!  I fell asleep over my iPad and he’s already answered before I can post this.  I’m going to post it anyway just because they pretty much match and still make sense when combined.

[Guppysnail]

On 4/14/2023 at 1:15 PM, dasaltemelosguy said:

someone well known stated that Prime and Fritz are “one molecule apart

Cory said this in one of his videos or livestreams. I just referenced him. 

 

On 4/14/2023 at 1:15 PM, dasaltemelosguy said:

The “A” in AMS stands for “amino”, indicating it’s an ammonia compound. While AMS is non-toxic and mildly stable up to a pH of about 10, (at which point it begins to break down), it is still not very stable so it can be broken down by a variety of environmental changes such as temperature, pH, and bacteria. This instability classifies it as a “weak bond” so it is accessible to beneficial bacteria as food. The “amino” portion is directly consumed by the BB readily.

In fact, it’s 92% as efficient as ammonia itself. All four of these laboratories have documented beneficial bacteria consuming AMS. Some are water samples; others are soil samples, but all have concluded BB eats AMS. So yes, you’re right, cycling will continue.

That is crazy cool. I always wondered about this. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with less (much less🤣) science minded folks like me 🤗

[TeeJay]

Always knew it was a good product this just confirms it even more. Nice work my friend.

[Colu]

Another great write up lots of interesting information @dasaltemelosguy

[Val]

On 4/14/2023 at 6:24 PM, TeeJay said:

Always knew it was a good product this just confirms it even more. Nice work my friend.

I'm not really a hobbyist, I just like having a tank.  But when I first dived into the hobby world 25 years ago on AquariaCentral and on a goldfish BB, Prime was easily the most beloved product out there.  I've been shocked to find that there are folks out there who don't love it.

[dasaltemelosguy]

On 4/14/2023 at 12:24 PM, Odd Duck said:

Yes, if levels of any of the nitrogenous toxins (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate) are extremely high, a large water change is always indicated, then dose Prime or other dechlorinator to bind anything (or at least most of anything) that’s left.  I suppose if you dumped enough Prime in the bag it might help but why would you not just start switching out water immediately or plop and drop for even faster reduction in toxins?  Yes, to adding Prime to the bag before shipping to minimize build up of toxins as they are produced, but probably no to treating a bag vs just temperature acclimate then plop and drop for me.  Especially when it comes in with a foul odor or some fish dead in the bag.  That’s a bag that no amount of Prime is going to improve, so getting fish out of that bag is top priority for me.

But for most people, using Prime is about the tank, not the bag, so these findings are very relevant to daily use of dechlorinators and toxin binders for most aquarists.

@dasaltemelosguy, I wonder if the “48 hour” thing is because they know more production is likely happening in the tank if the levels get high enough to need the 5X emergency dose (ED) and the Prime has all likely been “used up” in the first 48 hours or less.  So then redosing would almost certainly be wise before toxins build to dangerous levels again.

Hah!  I fell asleep over my iPad and he’s already answered before I can post this.  I’m going to post it anyway just because they pretty much match and still make sense when combined.

I think you're correct about all of the above, including the speculative part. For a variety of reasons, I can't see the addition of Prime in a shipping bag as comprehensive. It may help but it's limited. And it certainly can't replace water changes!😫

As you said, it's really about tank management, cycling, ammonia/nitrite spikes etc. but it's certainly not a replacement for proper care. 

I was thinking along the same lines. It's not "reversion" but rather, "exhaustion". The half-life of the sulfur compounds in Prime is 12-18 hours. So, by Hour-48, it has only 6% efficacy left. I think their use of "reversion" is a poor choice of words as it implies a sudden flood of ammonia back into the water on the 2nd day! I think like you, what really occurs is just waning protection. 

I have several university studies on shipping fish here as references for @Guppysnail , @Odd Duck's and my newest experiment on actively respirating shipping bags. One in particular examines a 48-hour shipment where the total ammonia rose to 14!  Obviously, that's 100% ammonium or there would be no fish left!  That also means the bag's pH must be below 7.

*

To return to your limited use observation, 100% agreement. It is the very same limitation/s that may make the proposed experiment invalid unfortunately. At certain ammonia levels, Prime et al's NH4 reductions will compete with O2 but at some PPM's, it will shift almost entirely to O2, leaving the ammonia products intact despite a reduction taking place (of O2 vs NH4). In addition, other imbalances, mostly thermodynamic unfortunately may prevent the proposed experiment from providing usable results as well because there's a huge ionic imbalance when the ammonia's charge is higher than the sulfur's attraction. If the PPM/SO2 ratio is too high, I fear it'll just suck the O2 out of the water and ignore the ammonia.

If such a test is performed, one must first need to verify an exothermic reaction* is underway before proceeding. Simultaneously the O2 levels will have to be continuously monitored such that any oxygen reductions may be factored into the ammonia reductions so one can separate the two numerically. Special attention to the *thermodynamics must be adhered to or unfortunately, the results will be distorted. The latter being paramount...and incredibly annoying! 

It can be done, however. There are ways to circumvent these inherent errors by changing the order of water treatments and especially the temperatures as the timeline progresses while continuously monitoring O2 levels but it's complicated and adds several steps and stages to avoid corrupting the ammonia data with oxygen data. But even if it yields some usable results, partial protection is still protection so it's a good test, nonetheless.   

*

This is a fun one. It's widely known that ClorAm-X is commonly used commercially for aquatic ammonia management. I have a friend who used to import marine fishes for Dolphin International and they consider ClorAm-X a life saver, literally. It's an old treatment and used widely in wastewater management. I even saw a study where they bubbled sulfur dioxide gas through wastewater to protect fish upstream in 1929!🤣

But I cringed when I read this next one. At an international koi show in Johannesburg, some users LITERALLY replaced water changes with ClorAm-X!

That's unfathomable to me but apparently, they rely on it. Most use it as an additive, not a replacement though (whew).

But here is the magazine article: Koi Show Water Management (koinet.net)

[Pepere]

In all fairness, if one has tho worry about the product preferentially binding to O2 instead of reducing ammonia unless carefully controlled, it utility in protection from ammonia becomes highly suspect and can not be relied on with much confidence.

[Guppysnail]

@dasaltemelosguy that is some crazy information. That koi one with replacing water change is startling. 
Of course it’s very simple common sense as hobbyists we will do water changes and use something like prime no one would ever think we wouldn’t. However I have run into extreme extenuating circumstances where I could not do water changes in a new fry tank with new hatched German blue rams. You actually helped me through that and produced a beautiful batch of fish. 
There was a water line leak at the main water facility and they were rerouting or repairing or whatever they did. They flooded the lines for several days with astronomical amounts of chlorine that took my ph to 8.8 and an absurd amount of gunk came from my tap for a week or more. Doing water changes made the situation much worse for the babies. 
I previously had a situation where they had an issue and shut our water off for 2 days. I had no issues at that time but that Koi article gives me peace of mind to know I could keep my fish alive if I had an ammonia issue during that time. 
 

The fact that in an emergency quarantine situation or an emergency fish in cycle I can keep my fish from experiencing extra exposure to ammonia is just fabulous and that it won’t stop the cycling process. 
 

Your knowledge and willingness to share with us REAL scientific information with the education to back it vs needing to rely on average joe non-science educated persons random guesses gives me peace of mind. 🤗
 

[Pepere]

Well as a practical matter to gain confidence , I pulled 2, 1 gallon samples in ceramic containers and dosed them to 8 ppm ammonia.  
 

I added 5 times regular dosage of Fritz Complete to one of the container and stirred them both up well to mix the ammonia evenly and the Frirz in the test container.

 

1 mml, treats 10 gallons, so 0.1 ml treats 1 gallon.  I dosed half a millileter to the gallon.

 

I am planning on testing ammonia  on both  samples every 2 hours.

 

my tap water chronically contains 1 ppm ammonia.

I am also doing the same test on straight tap water to see if a reduction of ammonia occurs over time.  
 

in this instance I added 0.5 cc Fritz complete to 2 cups of tap water which is 40 times the normal dose.

Edited April 16 by Pepere

[Guppysnail]

@dasaltemelosguy 

On 4/15/2023 at 11:57 AM, dasaltemelosguy said:

If such a test is performed, one must first need to verify an exothermic reaction* is underway

I know you spoke to me in an email about the time it takes and how temperatures affect the results. Is this what this statement is referring to. I think it’s very fascinating and others may enjoy you sharing the time difference in results. Maybe even your microwave trials.
If that is not what this statement is referring to can you help me out and explain a bit more detail on what this means. 
I find all of this very fascinating I just do not have the scientific education needed to interpret some of it properly. It may make it easier for others to see the results if they want to recreate this at home. Great way to show children a bit about chemistry. I know I don’t have your patience and attention to detail for control to do this but it does sound like fun (and a ton of work I thank you again for doing for us)
 

[Pepere]

I have found that if you dose 1/2 a milliliter ofFritz complete in 2 cups of water that has 1 ppm ammonia in it, no ammonia will show on an API liquid ammonia test.  This is about 40 times treatment dose.

 

but it does indeed show an effect…

[Pepere]

8 ppm ammonia, 5 times normal dosage of fritz complete.   Samples every 2 hours or so…

 

9 hours total…

 

stirred gallon up after dosing with fritz complete.  Maybe saw around 2 ppm reduction from initial dosing of Fritz complete.  No reduction since then.  
 

 

I will dose 5 times normal based on tank size if dealing with an ammonia issue, but only after completing a significant water change.

While I believe it has some mild effect, it certainly is not overwhelming at recommended emergency doses…

Reading on Fritz website, Fritz Complete is not compatible with axolotles.  It is not compatible with Ich X either…

 

and their recommendation if you have “extremely high” ammonia is

”Dilute the ammonia concentration by performing a water change. Fritz Complete can be added up to 5x the recommended amount safely for high ammonia concentrations.”

It is a crying shame they neglect to define what constitutes “extremely high” ammonia…

 

They also state it is not a temporary binding up that reverses unlike Prime…

 

honestly the language both companies use to market this  and lack of specificity as to what sort of reduction for a given dosage in what sort of time line is not conducive to building confidence..

 

Edited April 16 by Pepere

[Pepere]

More experimenting.

Sample on left shows difference after dosing with 20 times normal dose and stirring.  This is on top of the 5 times normal dose done this morning.  
 

notethere are no livestock or plants in this water it is just a test.

 

sample on right show effect of adding 10 times normal dose and stirring 11 hours after initial 5 times dose…

 

my results are not anything like what was reported in original post.

 

I will retest samples in the morning to see what effect time has.  My suspicion is that vigorously stirring after dosing completes the reaction much faster than dosing and circulation by filters in tank.  If I had to guess I expect no further color change in tomorrow mornings test…

 

my gut feeling is maybe 2-3 ppm reduction in ammonia from a 5 times normal dose usage.  Good enough to take care of residual ammonia after an initial water change…

[boylesdowntothis]

@Pepere, ph? temps throughout the process? did you test for exothermal environs? any gas escapes? if so, did you verify them? any order on entrance imperatives? you do realize you cannot use a sulfur based reduction at 8ppm with any amine no? i would not waste your time nor your api kit until you're properly instructed on how to testa reduction.   @dasaltemelosguy do you wish to explain these failures or should i?

[Pepere]

Is the average fish keeper going to be likely to follow all of those controls when they are treating a tank with ammonia in it?

 

or will they dose 5 times normal and hope for the best?

 

I am doing this to gain some level of confidence asto what “I” can expect when I am faced with a situation I need to treat ammonia, not a theoretical maximum effect if I do everything exactly right.  In my mind better to expect less from the product than too much.

pretty much I am a big fan of water changes for ammonia, nitrite spikes…But, if faced with that I will certainly be dosing 5 times normal dosage as I do now have confidence that there is  a definite measurable reduction of ammonia from use of Fritz Complete and or Prime.

I plan to repeat again at different levels of ammonia dosing to gain confidence in what I can expect as needed in the future.

If I found 8 ppm, and did a 50% water change and then dosed and of course did a follow up test a few hours later to see levels down to around 2 ppm that wouldnt be so bad,  or perhaps a deeper water change of about 60-70% would be even better followed by5 times normal dosing of dechlor.

Edited April 17 by Pepere

[dasaltemelosguy]

Hi @boylesdowntothis, yes, I see the errors as well. I can explain how to modify the experiment, so you won't need to. Thank you though.

Unfortunately, I am working and will need a couple of days before I can type it out but yes, I'm truly sorry but the tests are invalid as performed. I will describe the procedure for testing a sulfurous reduction of an amine if you wish to repeat it. I think the goal here is to know if ammonia reduction occurs and to quantify it. So, the proper testing methodology is needed so you can feel confident that your results are reliable.

@boylesdowntothis, I feel it's the results that are for fish keepers, not the chemistry. That's for guys like you!  Of course, the results must be valid as forwarding incorrect results to fish keepers helps no one. BTW, I feel privileged that people want to repeat my tests and see for themselves. Thank you all for that. 

PS: If you do not want to wait for my instructions, the Scripp's Institute of Oceanography has a paper describing this step x step in their Research papers. Better still most any wastewater facility uses almost the same ingredients to not pollute ammonia downstream. Those are great starts to understanding how this is accomplished. Thank you again for trying the experiment. @Guppysnail, I can answer your questions as well, but I need a few days. thanks all

[Guppysnail]

On 4/16/2023 at 8:54 PM, dasaltemelosguy said:

I can answer your questions as well, but I need a few days. thanks all

For the great info you provide I’ll GLADLY wait 🤗

[Pepere]

On 4/16/2023 at 8:54 PM, dasaltemelosguy said:

BTW, I feel privileged that people want to repeat my tests and see for themselves.

I had been quite skeptical before reading your post.  Seachem and Fritz’s explanations and instructions dont really build confidence in the claim.  Your post motivated me to see for myself.

I have done enough to be convinced there is a definite and measurable effect,

 

I am continuing to gain confidence in what I can expect, should I have need.  Better to expect less than you get, than get less than you expect…